AC on Jonah Golberg of National Review

Over at American Creation blog, Jonathan Rowe wrote a post of a few ideas from Jonah Golberg. Here is a taste: “Because God says so” is the greatest appeal to authority, and the appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, effective only for those who are pre-committed to that authority."

Before I get to Rowe's response, most secular authors, who make serious mistakes about our founding, make statements of biblical doctrine that makes sense only to themselves, and these men are less authoritative or knowledgeable on this subject than the ones Greg Bahnsen used to teach and lecture  through debate.

The bible is not a fallacy at all, given its revelation proves itself accurate through: predictive prophecy, among many other factors. Along with no inherent contradictions, Christ and His inspired revelation, cannot be compared to the flawed inconsistencies, and immorality of other religions. Christianity is Christ, and Him Crucified; giving the exact date of Christ's Crucifixion in Daniel 9; the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7, and David's vivid description of the Lord's death in Psalm 22. The other religions cannot compare.

To disbelieve the bible has nothing to do with it's inspiration or validity.

Then, Rowe writes, "Even though the Declaration of Independence is a theistic document, it is not a biblical one. The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book. A generic monotheistic God, though, seems to exist as a necessary given part of the equation."

The DOI is proven to be a Christian document and Nature's God as the Divine Person, Christ Jesus, by two prayers. One before the DOI and one after. The first one is 47 days before Hancock signed the Declaration before anyone else. Both prayers mention God through the mediator Christ; meaning Nature's God cannot be anyone else but Christ:

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness." (bold mine)
--Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

The founding fathers used the word "Merits" quite often, having its etymology in old Anglican and Catholic sources. It definitely refers to the Lord's crucifixion for sin. The second prayer by Congress is obviously after the DOI and again, God is referenced through Christ and His atoning work on the Cross.

"[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress. 


Moreover, the Ratifiers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had these prayers, and others, before them while they deliberated. The idea God changed is ridiculous and promulgated by people who know little of the founding. Rowe, again, "The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book.

However, Our unalienable rights are taken from the Bible:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians..
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

--Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

It is the Christian religion that secures unalienable rights:

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”



Here is another part of the prayer, but it references the Holy Ghost, proving the founders were Trinitarians. In 1776, the Unitarians were a very small minority, did not publicize themselves and were given an undue concession. In fact, unitarians did not mention the Holy Ghost due to the conflict of their beliefs and the orthodox:


"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...[to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance...and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Journals of...Congress (1907), Vol. IX, 1777, pp 854-855, November 1, 1777.


This information also proves the Articles of Confederation was ratified under the name of Christ, written during the same Second Continental Congress. Moreover, I can prove Christ is the God of the Constitution due to the fact the Congress after the Second Continental Congress; the Congress of the Confederation, lasted from 1781 to 1789, which in the time frame the Congress wrote the Constitution:

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his mercy favor and implore his protection. When the lust of dominion or lawless ambition excites arbitrary power to invade the rights, or endeavor to wrench wrest from a people their sacred and unalienable invaluable privileges, and compels them, in defence of the same, to encounter all the horrors and calamities of a bloody and vindictive war; then is that people loudly called upon to fly unto that God for protection..that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. (bold mine)

-Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1782



Notice, the "Supreme Being" and the Redeemer, being Divine. This is the first time I know of, anyone has tied the Constitution with the Congress that drafted it. Unitarians would not have written this.

Daniel Dreisbach on Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment

Here is historian Daniel Dreisbach's opinion of Thomas Jefferson and separation of church and state. Dreisbach says:

Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only.

Does Dreisbach believe the modern notion of establishment is what Jefferson believed? That isn't what TJ believed nor is it what he practiced. Jefferson used the historical definition of establishment used by the other framers that was defined by the Toleration Act of 1689, although the definition was common knowledge years before that. Modern liberals and conservatives are still getting TJ's separation letter to the Danbury Baptists confused. While TJ was President, there were worship services in many government buildings, including the House of Representatives. His letter to the Baptists was to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. Here is the ultimate violation of modern separation dogma found in a government document:

And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe [Kaskaskia Indians] have been baptised and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.

Liberals come up with all kinds of excuses for this one, that because they were Indians, we could give them money and they could establish and evangelize whatever faith they wanted, with our money! The fact is, the founding fathers believed the Law of Nature applies to all peoples at all times. Secularists even claim the catholic priest will not evangelize, as if they know what a catholic priest does. Warren Throckmorton is another fake Christian, who promotes homosexual sin in his writing and distorts the truth of the Kaskaskia Treaty TJ signed, by writing, "The Kaskaskia were already Catholic converts." Yet the treaty says, "The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic church." The point is not that they were all Catholics or not; it's what the treaty says. They weren't all Catholics and it's no different than in our nation, where almost everyone were Christians, so why not promote Christianity?

Liberals want it both ways. Throckmorton's next sentence is just as misleading, writing:

Nothing is said directly about evangelizing, and is an inference. Nothing in the treaty required the priest to attempt to make converts.

Does that mean they won't evangelize? Of course they will evangelize. That's what they do. It's another smokescreen. And then he makes a stupid assumption, "He certainly could have involved himself in numerous other pastoral duties to the already converted."

Whether TJ wanted to evangelize the Kaskaskia is irrelevant. The point is TJ violated the first amendment given the fact he didn't believe he violated it. The law of nature applies to everyone:

[A] Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse.

--TJ to James Madison, December 20, 1787.

If Throckmorton is correct, TJ contradicted himself here by interfering with the Kaskaskia's religion:

I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

--TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814.

TJ did not feel he could intervene with other nations and their religion because those rights are inerrant in the Law of Nature. James Madison believed the same thing:

[E]very government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights.

--JM. Annals of Congress, June 8, 1789.

Gregg Frazer's New Book

Gregg Frazer teaches up the road at Master's College, and has a new book out, where he claims the Founding Fathers believed in a hybrid religion called "theistic rationalism." He's pushed this for a while now. Frazer believes the Founding Fathers rejected historical Christianity, to cherry pick, according to what is rational, what parts of the Bible were legit and what weren't. On the surface, his premise appears contradictory, and untenable, given the framers believed man's reasoning was depraved by Sin, limiting their ability to determine ultimate truth in the first place. The Founding Fathers always belittled man's reason:

Experience is a continual comment on the worthlessness of the human race; and the few exceptions we find have the greater right to be valued in proportion as they are rare.

--Alexander Hamilton to Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

The great Deist slayer John Leland echos my point in 1737:

Thus I have considered what this author offers with regard to the proofs or evidences of divine revelation in general, in which his design is plainly to show that there can be no proper proofs or evidences of divine revelation to any but the persons immediately receiving it, and yet at the same time he affects to own the great usefulness of revelation in the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind.

--DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ASSERTED. WITH A PARTICULAR VINDICATION OF THE CHARACTER OF MOSES, AND THE PROPHETS, OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS APOSTLES. BY JOHN LELAND, D. D. LONDON
PRINTED FOR T. TEGG AND SON, CHEAPSIDE; R. GRIFFIN AND CO., GLASGOW; T. T. AND II. TEGG, DUBLIN: ALK> J. AND 5. A. TEOO, SYDNEY AND WOBART TOWN.

Moreover, in his audio of 2003, Frazer's errors abound, including the framers borrowed from the Enlightenment (the use of reason with education to enlighten society). Alexander Hamilton--who Frazer references in his book--refutes his claim:

This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity. 

 --Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43.


The framers believed our founding was based on Scripture, explained through men of the Protestant Reformation--Calvin, Luther, Sidney, Rutherford, Grotius, Hooker, Locke, Puffendorf, Ponet, etc:

The philosophical examination of the foundations of civil society, of human governments, and of the rights and duties of men, is among the consequences of the Protestant Reformation..The principles of Sidney and of Locke, constitute the foundation of the North American Declaration of Independence, and together with the subsequent writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau, that of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the Constitution of the United States.

--John Q. Adams, 6th President of the U.S.A, Author of the Monroe Doctrine and our Foreign Policy. A Lecture DELIVERED BEFORE THE FRANKLIN Lyceum AT PROVIDENCE, Ro 10, NOVEMBER 25, 1842.

John Calvin and Martin Luther espoused reasoning into civil government one hundred years before the enlightenment. The promotion of education, science, astronomy, etc,. was exalted due to Reformers: Calvin, Pascal, Kepler, Luther, Erasmus, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, et al. 


Furthermore, 18th Century Deists were not theistic rationalists! Deists believed in miracles. Ben Franklin was not a Deist, rather, he believed Moses parted the Red Sea, and the Flood and Sodom and Gommorrah:

[T]he Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature..If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things….[but] he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty’d up his Hand and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him. It is true that if another deluge should happen wherein the windows of heaven are to be opened, such pipes may be unequal to the falling quantity; and if God for our sins should think fit to rain fire upon us, as upon some cities of old, it is not expected that our conductors of whatever size, should secure our houses against a miracle.

--Benjamin Franklin, “On the Providence of God in the Government of the World,” in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), vol. 1, p. 267-8. "Experiments Supporting the Use of Pointed Lightning Rods" Printed in Benjamin Vaughan, ed., Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces...by Benj. Franklin... (London, 1779), pp. 487-99: French translation in Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg, Oeuvres de M. Franklin... (2 vols., Paris, 1773), I, 289-300; ADS (lacking the conclusion of the published version): Bibliothèque de Genève; AD (fragment Of the published conclusion): American Philosophical Society. Aug. 27 [i.e., 18?], 1772.

Was God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah reasonable to a Dissenter? Franklin's Deity was Yahweh:

"History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion, from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons..and the Excellency of the Christian religion above all others antient or modern. God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights [James 1:17] to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered...I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men..We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." [bold face mine]


--Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1749. and the Const. Convention.


Franklin tells Paine he intimates he believes a specific, personal, Deity (Yahweh), not a general Deity:

By the argument [Age of Reason] it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.

--To Thomas Paine, in 1790. The Works of Franklin. Sparks.


On to Frazer's audio. He says "the founding fathers believed this hybrid." Not just a few, but all of them. "Christian america only read you some of the quotes..they don't show all the evidence..they shared beliefs with Deists..that all religion leads to the same god." Frazer uses the wrong definition of Deism anyway, and not even Franklin shared beliefs with Deists. If all roads lead to God, and being good is the goal, why did they preach the Gospel to the Indians? The Gospel means "good news" not "being good." The founding fathers preached the Gospel to save souls from the penalty of Sin, not to be good people. The Founding Fathers believed everyone was bad--no one was good. No doubt the Indians believed they were good people already. Frazer says they believed "the wicked are punished temporarily..they didn't believe Jesus was God?" They believed in purgatory? Where is the documentation on that? This blog quotes James Madison claiming Jesus is God. Can he quote Madison recanting that?


Frazer continues, "they believed reason determines what was true revelation." But the only written evidence is they believed their reasoning was depraved. Frazer would have a firmer foundation if they did not believe their minds were corrupted. Frazer claims, "they had bad things to say about Calvinism." Where did James Wilson, Hamilton, Madison and Morris write against Calvinism? Continuing on, "Jefferson, Adams and Franklin wrote the Declaration." No. Jefferson wrote the rough draft, which was corrected by the Congress. John Adams wrote its principles were already written. Frazer repeats,  "George Washington  never took Communion." Yet, on this blog there are eyewitness accounts from Christians, that he did take Communion. Were those Christians lying? Were they too old to be credible witnesses?


Frazer claim's George Washington never called himself a Christian. He does here:

[I] inclose you a copy of Mr. Cary's last Acct. currt. against me, which upon my honr and the faith of a Christian is a true one, and transmitted to me with the additional aggravation of a hint at the largeness of it.

--GW to ROBERT STEWART April 27, 1763.

Who's neglecting all the evidence? GW's quote below caught my attention, and might be cause for concern if GW hadn't called himself a Christian, took Communion, was a Vestryman, referred to Jesus as Divine, and believed the Bible was inspired:

Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception. [bold face mine]

--To the Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1787.

Referring to Christians as "them" is strange, but doesn't prove GW isn't a Christian. Bishop Meade was an eyewitness to Episcopalians sometimes skipping Communion--giving a more valid explanation. Christianity is based on faith. Theoretically, Christianity could be wrong. Frazer then claims GW was a Mason, etc. However, 18th century American Masons were Trinitarians.


At the end of the audio, Frazer asks if the Constitution is based on the Bible, why isn't it quoted? David Barton gives the correct answer in Original Intent. He should read it.

Not to ignore his attack on David Barton. In Frazer's Preface, he writes:

My frustration with the lack of an accurate record grew each time someone passed me a video of Christian America advocate David Barton.

Frazer mocks David Barton over an accurate record, and saying he dodged him for a debate? If isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. With all Frazer's inaccuracies, I know someone he would not want to debate.  Finally, it is the secularists goal to mis-represent the Founding Fathers with a handful of the least orthodox framers in order to rig the narrative in their favor. In fact, there are no "key founders." The Founding Fathers unanimously believed the Ratifiers were more important than the drafters of the Constitution, and the ratifiers are all equal.

The Apparent Ecumenist David Barton Commenting About Glenn Beck

Mr. Barton has taken some heat from Christians; for instance, dropping him from radio programs, as he believes Glenn Beck is a Christian, although Beck says he's a Mormon. Mormons deny all the fundamentals of Christianity taught in the New Testament. As this blog as previously shown, Mormonism is the most blashemous of all the Cults, claiming The Father had sexual relations--as if that could happen--with Mary, to form the Spirit being Jesus. They believe that because they say the Father was a man who became God. Only a demonic mind could inspire that because it isn't in the Bible.

David Barton is treading on dangerous ground. People claim they have a relationship with Jesus every day, however, it is a special relationship by Grace through faith and repentence, where God makes alive our spirit, by his Spirit--which was dead from sin--making us a New Creation in Christ Jesus for good works, to make us born again Christians. God will convert those by the way He has ordained in His Word. The Book of Mormon and "Pearl of Great Price" contradicts the Bible. Thus, The Holy Spirit will not make alive that which rejects what He has inspired.

How can David Barton not understand it is the religion of Ecumenism that anti-christ will bring to the world?  Beck specifically said the God of the DOI is not the Christian God, which contradicts all our history. Barton should sit Beck down and ask him if he is born again. If he is clueless what that is, he is not a recipient of it.

Judge temporarily blocks tough Alabama immigration law

CNN reports the tough Alabama Immigration Law was supposedly struck down by a federal judge today. Alabama should ignore her ruling as Thomas Jefferson ignored the Sedition Act, as Andrew Jackson ignored the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and as Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, giving the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe the States should not reject a Federal Law, but reject a Judicial opinion that violates Article I, section 8 of the Constitution--The Law of Nations.

Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a tough immigration law in Alabama on Monday.

Opponents of the measure -- including state church leaders, the U.S. Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union-- had asked U.S. Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn to stop the law, which was scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

State officials argue the law would help Alabama and not violate civil rights.

In her two-page order, the judge said there was not enough time before Thursday to address all the legal arguments from various parties over the law's constitutionality. "It is hereby ordered that Act 2011-535 is temporarily enjoined, and may not be executed or enforced," wrote Blackburn.

Dennis Prager, God, Liberals and Liberty

Dennis Prager's recent post about Liberty and God differentiates rights from Christianity and Islam. It is vitally important to understand the identity of the God that gave us our rights. The Declaration of Independence tells us who the God of our liberty and rights is; His name is "The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God." This appellation is attributed to no other God in history than the God of the Bible. In fact, the Founding Fathers understood this name as passed down from the Scriptures to Protestant Reformers: John Calvin, and Martin Luther, to English and Catholic Elites: John Locke, Richard Hooker, William Blackstone, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.

Timothy Dwight, And The Moderate Calvinist Battle Against Unitarianism

The theological fight between Orthodox Christians and Unitarians took center stage in mid to late 18th Century America. Moderate, Orthodox Calvinists such as: Timothy Dwight, Abiel Holmes, Ashbel Green, Samuel Langdon, Ezra Stiles, Joseph Bellamy, Jedidiah Morse, Nathan Strong et al., battled unitarians: Jonathan Mayhew, Ebenezer Gay, Charles Chauncy, Simeon Howard, and Samuel West. These leaders in the Church, fought like cats and dogs in various periodicals, and in the pulpits, over the fundamentals of Christianity, and what was literal and allegory. Timothy Dwight was the leader, and promoter of today's Evangelical movement. For the next one-hundred years and beyond, Dwight's Theology was study material in every Protestant college in the world, going through twelve editions. Dwight is the Father of Modern Evangelicalism.

Dwight, and the Evangelicals halted unitarianism, deism, and other forms of Pelagianism to the inner Boston, Massachusetts area:

By the 1830's, evangelicals had successfully contained Unitarianism within the Boston area and the West had become the new battleground for Orthodoxy.

          -Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p. 199.

Furthermore, independent periodicals echoed the same point:

Unitarians, who are principally confined to Boston and its vicinity.

-Boston Patriot, May 13, 1815.

That unitarianism was limited to a small area reflects the influence it had on the population. Make no mistake, there were many Unitarians at Harvard, however, "only one man: John Clark of Boston, an overseer of the college disagreed with David Tappan's election as Professor of Divinity in 1793." (Bentley, Diary, III, p. 38). Dwight's battle with the unitarians started in 1783 as the minister in "Greenfield Hill," a congregational church in Fairfield, Connecticut. "Dwight had a genius for recognizing able proteges — among them Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and Leonard Bacon, all whom would become major religious leaders and theological innovators in the ante bellum decades." Having graduated from Yale in 1769, Dwight made Yale the "largest institution of higher education in North America." Dwight took over Yale from Evangelical Clergyman Ezra Stiles, the President from (1778-1795) and Pastor of Second Congregational Church in Newport, R. I. from (1755-1777).

Not a few historians label Stiles an innocent bystander in this Puritan battle against pelagianism, which may have been the case publicly, however his diary paints a different picture. If Stiles did not join this quarrel in print, he joined the Orthodox in the pulpit. His diary gives many examples of his opinion of heresy.

May God defeat these insidious Machiavellian hellish designs against his Chh [Church] in New England.

-Diary, Vol I, p. 587.

Stiles had many, less than Orthodox friends, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Stiles once had dinner in Scotland with Franklin, and David Hume. However, he was an evangelical:

[M]ay I be quickened to greater fidelity..to press home Evangelical Truths..reprehending with all authority, not shuning to declare the whole truth.

-Diary, Oct. 22, 1769. 

His Diary presents short entries of debate that never appear to escalate detailing Christian doctrine:

He [Abraham Redwood] has a peculiar notion about sin--that there is no Imputation of sin from Adam, but God created every man a Sinner..I objected this made G[o]d the Author of Sin.

-Diary, May 9, 1770.

Stiles died in 1795, and Dwight personally led Yale in training men to carry out the fight against heresy. Dwight engineered the Second Great Awakening (1802-1810), aligning Old Calvinists by planning to spread Orthodoxy throughout New England. Among these Calvinists Dwight joined forces with, were Hopkinsians, after Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D. pastor of the First Congregational Church at Newport, Rhode Island. Hopkinsians were remnants of the Edwardians, after the great Theologian Jonathan Edwards; the main theologian of the Great Awakening, that spread from New England to Georgia. Towards the end of Edwards' life, he strayed into meta-physical doctrine, attempting to "combine his theory of cause & effect with Newtonian Cosmology." The staunch Calvinist that he was, Edwards did not believe in self-determination; this tended to mis-lead his later followers that God was vengeful, wanting to punish everyone. Rigid discipline, and too much emphasis on human depravity pushed parishoners away. Here is an example of Edwards' thoughts:

No energy is self-generating, so the actions of human will must be determined from outside oneself.

-Edwards, Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Achron Books, 1974.

Contrast Edwards with Dwight and the moderate Calvinists:

God's foreknowledge has not the remotest influence on the agent, or his action.

-Dwight, Theology I.

Dwight used "means" to nurture one's spiritual conversion, through prayer, education, and church attendance. The Old Calvinists meta-physical doctrines stifled evangelism, but Dwight understood they were a vital group, with a large base, that also disliked heterodox doctrine calling itself Christianity. Yet, the Scriptures are simple; for simple people. The Church has long delineated what is literal and what is allegory. Here, in Luke 17: 26-30, Jesus affirms the flood, the story of Abraham, Lot, and the destruction of the cities of the plain:

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. [italics mine]

Notice, Jesus says, "[A]s it was in the days of Noe." Unitarians and/or rationalists, proclaim they adhere to inerrancy, yet, denial of these obvious literal passages leave no excuse.

Dwight, and the moderates employed Old Calvinists to spread a moderate, almost Arminian form of Calvinism.

 Along with Jedidiah Morse in Massachusetts, the New Divinity combined all Calvinists to defeat the unitarian influence. Morse, with the Hopkinsians, formed Andover Theological Seminary, that survives to this very day. Furthermore, the battle against heresy was not as some would suggest:

Contrary to publicized orthodox opinion, the great majority of Jeffersonians were in fact Trinitarian Protestants.

-Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p.150

In my opinion, Dwight and the Modern Calvinists did a dis-service, sometimes viciously attacking the Jeffersonians throughout New England. These attacks by Federalists, no doubt hurt the party, losing the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson; linked "Jeffersonian leaders with the illuminati" in the Connecticut Courant, Berk, p. 131. Yes, the Jeffersonians attacked the Standing Order of Connecticut Gentry, however, writing these falsehoods didn't help the Federalists. Dwight even advised spurning democratic members of Puritan families. The Connecticut Courant, edited by Dwight's brother, Theodore, had the nerve to ask Jefferson to sign the Apostles Creed.

In New England, Jeffersonians had several papers as well, including The Aurora and American Mercury. Their rhetoric included calling Dwight, "Pope of Connecticut" and a diatribe in the Mercury, attacking the Standing Order of Connecticut:

"...an union of church & state--an union which the experience of all countries has proved to be incompatible with civil & religious liberty."

-American Mercury, Sept. 25, 1800.

It reads like James Madison. If it is him, it's another example of Madison's inconsistency, having fought against Virginia's assessment for Christian teachers, yet, he wrote any State can form whatever religion they like:

If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest. [italics mine]

-James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Virginia).

Dwight viewed religion (Orthodox Christianity) the basis for liberty, as Puritanism had protected their rights, and provided happiness for nearly two centuries. Dwight was correct; there was no discrimination of any sects, nor a union of church and state. Dwight claimed the Jeffersonians wanted a pluralistic society, that always leads to infidelity:

Requiring citizens to support religion is not only consistent with freedom, but the primary cause of it.

-Woods, History of Andover,  p. 106.

In light of the happiness and liberty religion had brought to New England, the Jeffersonians arrogantly labeled Congregational missionary work as a "Priestly Conspiracy." Berk, p. 163. and "the usual alliance of church & state." Mercury, July 2, 1801; and June 27, 1805.

But Dwight had history on his side.  "To the orthodox mind, religion was the chief agency of social control." Berk, p. 142. In defense of Connecticut's Standing Order, Dwight wrote:

The whole history of the heathen world furnishes not a single reason to believe, that its teachings ever reformed one individual, either among the teachers, or among the disciples.

-Sermons I, On Revelation, p. 103.

Because God demands obedience to governmental authorities, this obedience is the basis for social virtue. To the Federalists, democracy served to destroy social harmony and a disrespect for authority.

At the end of the day, Harvard did not officially became Unitarian until Henry Ware was appointed Hollis Professor of Divinity in 1803, by succeeding David Tappan, who defended historical Puritanism. Unitarianism never even gained ground in outer Massachusetts. Many Politicians, such as, Josiah Bartlett, Benjamin Rush et al., became universalists, yet, never departed from Historical Christian Orthodoxy.

Immanent Frame's Claude S. Fischer writes about Christian America

Over at Immanent Frame, Claude S. Fisher, a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, has written a small post claiming, "American was not born Christian, but grew to be very Christian centuries later."[bold face mine]

Why a liberal, sociology professor would dare write about our founding is beyond me. It's easy pickins even by a cursory examination of this blog. Immanent Frame, do yourself a favor, employ persons who understand the Founding Fathers. I've read some of your posts on Christianity in relation to our nation, and it's less than satisfactory. Let's get something clear right now. When the framers spoke of Protestant religion, they are referring to the Protestant Reformation, and they knew exactly what the Reformers preached. They did not preach heterodoxy. The Protestant Religion did not include unitarianism, or any other pelagianism; all of that heresy was kicked to the curb at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619.

Politically speaking, some forms of pelagianism was allowed, and considered Christian, although it carried little weight, as unitarians needed to keep their views secret; heretical pastors hid their views. Theologically speaking, the majority understood orthodoxy from the Reformers, and by reading the Scriptures themselves.

Returning to Mr. Fischer, listing the State Constitutions is enough to keep Mr. Fischer in his day job:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion.(until 1851)[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both.[bold face mine]

NEW YORK 1777 (until 1821) That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.[bold face mine]

NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.[bold face mine]

Here is more of a taste of Mr. Fischer:

Over the wider American landscape, however, colonists were notably “unchurched” and “un-Christian.” Scattered around in separate households (unlike the Puritans who concentrated in villages), most Americans had no church to go to and little connection to what we would call organized religion. Even where there were churches to attend, many went either irregularly or simply because the church was one of the rare places—along with the tavern—to see people in a sparsely-developed society.

Then why do all the states mandate Christianity, and why did nearly every state mandate the death penalty for homosexuality? The people obviously understood their faith from the Bible. Here is more:

Such waves of enthusiasm (“Awakenings”) in some places and at some times rallied some people to faith, but the clergy generally despaired of the heathens who had settled the new continent.

The Great Awakening went from New Hampshire to Georgia! It went not into some places, it went everywhere, and entire communities were affected.

Most early Americans were not believers in the sense that affirming Christians are today. They were likelier to understand spells, potions, and omens than theological doctrines.

Spells? Potions? Omens? If they weren't Christians as today, why did the vast majority take communion in the Church to identify with Christ?

The colonial elites, some of whom became Founding Fathers, themselves tended to be vaguely Christian. Even John Adams, a cultural conservative who struggled against the radical Thomas Jefferson, was “only” a Unitarian.

Only a small minority were Unitarians; this is why Adams and others kept their views secret.

Finally, To The Blogosphere; James Madison's Notes On The Bible Part I

When I first saw these notes (and others James Madison wrote attending college), I felt like a kid in a candy store. I knew they were real, however, did his notes present Christian Orthodoxy, as the Bible explains? I have seen some of these quotes, one in particular, that is never sourced. They make their rounds, posted both by Christian Nation, and secularist hounds, who have no gumption to check its authenticity, thereby bringing attention to themselves, rather than to the substance of the quotes.

Before I present Founding Father James Madison's Notes on the Bible, the biggest question I had after reading them, was, did Madison write anything while forming the nation that blatantly contradicts these words from 1770 to 1775? That answer is a resounding no! But, let's face it, that some of the Founding Fathers changed their views is a fact of history. Along with Madison, Robert Treat Paine, John Marshall, James Kent, and John Adams come to mind. I mention John Adams because he also believed in inerrancy of Scripture until after he helped form the nation:

"The idea of infidelity [a disbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures or the divine origin of Christianity, Websters 1828 Dict.] cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated [denounced] as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason.

-John Adams to James Warren on August 4, 1778.

A thorough examination of each of their writings, show their fundamental views on religion changed over time. Calling the "Great Spirit" of the Indians the "Father of us all" and Christianity, "The best and purest religion" as Madison did, happened in the 19th century, beyond the time of our founding. Furthermore, Marshall and Kent never departed from inerrancy of the Bible, but Madison's quotes do.

Here are some of Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.

[Th]e Acts

Ch. 20. Grace, it is the free gift of God. Luke. 120 32-v. 32

Ch. 21. Sins, or Faults, committed before conversion should not be related to the prejudice of the late Sinner v. 8

Ch. 22. Carnal Reason, when against the command of God, should be laid by. v. 19

Ch. 23. Conscience[:] it should be inform'd as well as followed. v. 1.
Herod mentioned ib[id].
Sadducees, deny the Resurrection & the existence of Angel or Spirit v. 8

Ch. 26. Unconverted has little reason to expect to convert others by their ministry

Ch. 28. Charity[:] no duty more certainly rewarded in another World; so is it frequently rewarded in this, as was Publius, by the miraculous cure perform'd on his Father for his Charity to Paul. v. 8.

Gospels.

Mat. Ch 1st Pollution[:] Christ did by the power of his Godhead purify our nature from all the pollution of our Ancestors v. 5. &c

Virgin Mary had no other Child (probably) but our Saviour. v. 25

Some Proverbs of Solomon

XX 9 Who can say I have made my Heart clean; I am pure from my sin

In the book of Acts, where the Bereans are mentioned that they searched the scriptures, JM commends their conduct "as a noble example for all succeeding Christians to imitate and follow..."

"Omnisciency--God's foreknowledge doth not compel, but permits to be done." Acts, ch. II. v. 23.
"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."
"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."

The editor believes these notes, with the exception of the extracts from Proverbs, were quoted from William Burkitt's, Expository Notes, with Practical Observations, on the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, printed in London in 1724. JM most likely wrote these notes while a student at the College of New Jersey.

Of course the above sentiments is what JM and his family believed for generations; foreknowledge, depravity, The Trinity, Grace, etc. encommpassed the Calvinist beliefs of James Madison.

JM's Calvinism is written in: The Federalist Papers of 1787-88, and his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785, evidenced from "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction.."..It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society."

The Worship of God, (in its Christian context), is not a choice, but a duty, brought on by the conscience.

In part II, I'll discuss JM's later Calvinist writings.

What Christianity Didn't Give Us?

Yet another blogger espousing views of Christianity that go against even a cursory examination of Scripture. Managing Editor of Cato Unbound Jason Kuznicki, has this to say about Christianity's influence:

"Many ideas that are crucial to the modern political synthesis are nowhere to be found until the seventeenth century at the earliest, and even during that era, the far more typical Christian politics was not John Locke’s, but that of the lesser-known Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux and court preacher to Louis XIV. Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture made the case that the most natural Christian polity — indeed, the only properly Christian polity — was an absolute monarchy, because the king was an image of God on earth. Christianity certainly taught that there was an inherent dignity to all people, regardless of social station, but it was quite reluctant to challenge the idea of social station itself."

Modern political foundations were nowhere espoused "until the seventeenth century at the earliest?" Did not the Protestant Reformation promote freedom of conscience, equal rights, property rights, etc? The Reformation began at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Secondly, if Mr. Kuznicki would have read 1 Samuel 12:17 and 25, he wouldn't have used Bossuet's work:

"I will call unto the Lord..that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king. But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your king."

Jesus Christ is reluctant to challenge social station? The rabbis of Jesus' day wouldn't dare talk to a woman in public. They said they would rather die than leave "The Law" to women. Women were basically slaves in the first century, but the greatest rabbi talked in public to women. Women were the first to tell of the Resurrection of Christ, and the Apostle Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [bold face mine]

Talk about going against the grain; if it wasn't for Christianity, Islam would reign, and what then of women's rights?

The N.T. is just as unaccomodating to tyranny as the O.T. The Apostle Paul calls Rome a perverted nation:

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world"

-Phil 2:15

Furthermore, John Calvin's understanding of "the powers that be are ordained of God" is not absolute. If God is sovereign, which He is, then yes, tyrants acquire power with God's approval because that power is sacred. However, Calvin believed power was not carte blanche, as did the other Reformers:

"For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors . . .), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dis-simulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance." [bold face mine]
-Calvin, Institutes 4. 20. 30

As I've noted in an earlier post, Calvin was the first great promoter of Representative Government. Quoting David W. Hall's excellent book, Genevan Reformation And The American Founding, Calvin's influence on the Founding Fathers is remarkable:

"The highly respected nineteenth-century Harvard historian George Bancroft was one of many who asserted that Calvin's ideas buttressed liberty's cause. He and others noted the influence of this thought on the development of various freedoms in Western Europe and America. Writing in the middle of the nineteenth-century, Bancroft extolled Calvin as "the foremost of modern republican legislators" and responsible for elevating the culture of Geneva into "the impregnable fortress of popular liberty , the fertile seed-plot of democracy."

Also, from my previous post:

"No doubt Christianity, and John Calvin's Exposition of it, was the greatest influence on the American Experiment. Calvin's theory of "Solidarity" is the basis and foundation of Republican Representative Government. Solidarity refers to how an individual refers to a group, nation, or mankind, etc. The group is then viewed and treated in relation to its head or King. Solidarity is the basis of the human race having worth and dignity, as man is made in the image of God, His image imputed by Adam to us (Gen. 1:26-27; James 3:9). Solidarity is the basis for: election, the Levitical Priesthood, Corporate Guilt and Punishment, and Even For the Righteous. Egypt's punishment based on the sins of a few is a classic example. The Bible teaches the acts and decisions of one's representative are viewed and treated as being one's own acts and decisions. If our representatives declare war, you and I have declared war. Representatives for the mass of people was started by God as far back as Exodus 18. Because man is depraved (Calvin's first point in his five points of Calvinism), checks had to be established to limit his power. The Separation of Powers Doctrine, etc. was derived from the work of John Calvin."

Any mention of the Social Contract theory; that is, not a mere contract between humans, but that God is the foundation of the contract. A 1579 Huguenot tract, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, explains what rulers can lose (their reign) by departing from the Law and Gospel.

Egalitarianism is strictly condemned by both Jesus and Paul. For, any idea of man contradicting the Gospel is vanity:

"Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. [bold face mine].

-Mark 7:6-7

Here is the Apostle Paul echoeing Jesus' sentiments:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

-Col 2:8

How much more did the Founding Fathers adhere to Representative Republican Government started in Ex 18?